tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4513524515428334509.post1296543010114030525..comments2024-03-10T10:55:11.119+00:00Comments on The 1709 Blog: Orphan works: the diligent search requirement? It doesn't workMarie-Andree Weisshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17125973798789498436noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4513524515428334509.post-87147411468505105682016-12-13T06:55:36.511+00:002016-12-13T06:55:36.511+00:00I would also dispute whether all the sources liste...<i>I would also dispute whether all the sources listed are actually valid ones. To take a single example, "Georgian and early Victorian regional newspapers (1750's–1870's)": would this ever need to be consulted, since self-evidently anything contained within them would now be in the public domain?</i><br /><br />Sources from part of this date range could be used to research birth notices (birth dates) of people whose work is still in copyright. Knowing birth date allows you to calculate death date range, helping narrow your search for actual death date (which, in Australia at least, then allows you to calculate duration of copyright in the work).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4513524515428334509.post-68688261058508742622016-02-15T14:09:45.956+00:002016-02-15T14:09:45.956+00:00Eleonora,
I think that the headline for this pi...Eleonora, <br /><br />I think that the headline for this piece is somewhat misleading. While I accept that the EnDOW report (Working Paper 1) is critical of some aspects of the diligent search regimes which apply in the three countries they studied, I cannot see anywhere in their work the conclusion that "It doesn't work"<br /><br />It is easy to forget that the Orphan Work exception is a privilege which lies outside both the Berne Convention and the WIPO Copyright Treaty and goes to the fundamentals of a copyright owner's rights. indeed it flies in the face of the Three Step Test. If a search is less than diligent, these rights will quickly become worthless, with any individual or body able to just appropriate works with little or no impediment. This was the essence of the Stop43 campaign's objection with respect to photographic works which can easily become 'orphaned' via the internet.<br /><br />It is accepted that there are strong cultural grounds for making some works available to the wider public (a new public, perhaps?) even where there is a presumption that the works are still protected by copyright. And both the EU Directive and the UK Licensing Scheme are constructed to try and achieve a sensible balance between the competing interests of lost right holders and the public good. It should be hard to circumvent the normal rights of a copyright holder. <br /><br />While the EnDOW team are to be congratulated for their careful examination of how things have turned out in the three sample countries, they don't appear to have actually followed up on the experience of any of those institutions which have carried out the diligent search process, preferring to compile a large range of possible sources and authorities which might, theoretically, need to be consulted. In contrast I have followed up on the experience of the largest (so far) single user of the UK licensing scheme (namely the Museum of the Order of St John) and their experience was wholly positive, and nothing like the ordeal the EnDOW report portrays. <br /><br />One should not forget that where institutions like the British Museum, or indeed the Museum of the Order of St John, are concerned, there is likely to be extensive in-house expertise on which to draw when making a search plan. For example, if a work can be dated to a particular period, many of the sources quoted in the Appendix to their report will be inapplicable, and effort can be focussed on those which remain, irrespective of whether the sources are freely accessible online or not. I would also dispute whether all the sources listed are actually valid ones. To take a single example, "Georgian and early Victorian regional newspapers (1750's–1870's)": would this ever need to be consulted, since self-evidently anything contained within them would now be in the public domain?<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com